???
I don't think Catchfire was talking to me, Fidel.
I haven't made any of the comments here against socialism, anarchism, or unions.
And again. it wasn't an invitation to derail things with your conspiracy theory that seemingly applies to everything from politics to breakfast cereal.
Not just that, Fidel. though I'm not surprised at your spinning your usual tale around that one.
The kidnapping aside, there have been plenty of politically-motivated bombings, attacks and murders in Canada.
But I do wonder what, if anything, it has to do with the topic (and no, it's not an invitation; it's a rhetorical point).
I'm afraid it was you who started it, mr red baiter. If you really are interested in the history of cold war terrorism in actual front line states during that glorious era, feast your eyes and ears. Your dubious claim above is what provoked my response. As the only other principal in this minor exchange I think you are obligated to pay attention to what it is you say from time to time. Cut the bs and put pedal to metal.
???
I don't think Catchfire was talking to me, Fidel.
I haven't made any of the comments here against socialism, anarchism, or unions.
And again. it wasn't an invitation to derail things with your conspiracy theory that seemingly applies to everything from politics to breakfast cereal.
Oh fuck off.
(And I accept the consequences for that remark, Catchfire. Cheers. 
)
Oh fuck off.
(And I accept the consequences for that remark, Catchfire. Cheers.
Whatever, Fidel.
But seriously, I don't know what you are refering to. If it is my comment about the elephant in the room, I don't care if there are some here who think the entire system needs to be overthrown and replaced.
But I do think it needs to be laid on the table out in a discussion of why some might think nothing else works. After all, if you think the system is irrevocably broken you will obviously have no interest in changing it for the better. And it also raises the question of the wisdom of trying to push revolutionary change faster than it might naturally proceed.
And that gets to the core of why SOME people opt for violence and shock.
Sorry Fidel, but there is enough nonsense in this thread without having do deal with you derailing it.
Reporting.
You referred to my "conspiracy theory" concerning right wing terror. But it's not a conspiracy theory when a number of their own agents of doom have blown the whistle on their employers. It's no longer conspiracy theory when European parliaments have acknowledged and even publicly denounced NATO-sponsored terrorism of the recent past and surely continuing today with global terrorism increasing at a frenzied pace since official end of the cold war. According to Noam Chomsky, and both socialists and non-socialists, terrorism is official U.S. Military policy and has been for a long time. Of course, the U.S. cosmetic government was the first and only NATO member country to officially deny Gladio. It's when they deny their own cold war history that they look suspicious. It was real clandestine history and actual terrorism not a couple of kidnappings, one of them ending tragically while the other committed by complete amateurs in 1970's Quebec.
According to the US Government accusations that the CIA had contact with FLQ militants is the result of another forgery of documents by agents of the former USSR. Those dirty communists obviously resorted to anything in order to defame their cold war nemeses, the forces of good and light based out of Langley. They even had Trudeau fooled into believing the CIA had a covert hand in October crisis. Imagine that. tsk tsk
On the other hand...
WikiLeaks: CIA paper says U.S. is an 'Exporter of Terrorism' Confessions from a cold war relic.
I think you should turn yourself in for being a general all around fucktard. Just a suggestion.
You're both lucky there isn't a reporting mechanism for political unreliability.
You're both lucky there isn't a reporting mechanism for political unreliability.
Hilarious!
That's got to be the joke of the week, SJ.
Did I miss some sort of blood oath on the way in the door here?
Mask Avengers: Canadian Protesters to Show Faces or Get 10 Years in Jail
http://rt.com/news/canada-mask-bill-riots-759/
"Canadian lawmakers weren't exactly in the Halloween spirit when they approved a new bill on Wednesday. The legislation makes it illegal to wear masks during riots and protests. Guilty parties could face up to 10 years in prison. Bill C-309 passed with a vote of 153 to 126 in the Canadian Parliament. It will now move on to the Senate..."
while most pay no attention, bit by bit and story by story they build a prison for all
Any person wearing a face covering is subject to a five year sentence if the peaceful march they are talking part in is declared illegal. Like the sentence of the CLASS activist for civil contempt of court this reinforces what our rights as citizens are. You have the right to protest until the authorities tell you to stop. Sounds like any dictatorship anywhere but we delude ourselves into thinking our system is not like the "other" in places where the "regimes" need changing to give their citizens the right to protest until their government says not to.
The bill is controversial as it makes it difficult to draw a line between a peaceful demonstration and unlawful gathering, Michael Forian, reporter at CJAD Radio, told RT.
“What this law basically does is that it will criminalize people who are in protest if the police of that city deem the protest to be an unlawful assembly,” he argues.
“Let’s look at Montreal for example and any major city in Quebec, where if you are 50 people or more in a peaceful protest, a non-violent protest – that could be deemed an unlawful assembly if you have not presented your itinerary, and the directions of your protest routes to the police force of the municipality on Quebec.”
while most pay no attention, bit by bit and story by story they build a prison for all
The existing society is already a prison, and a failed one at that. Bit by bit they're merely formalizing regulations and rules that in past times were specific to designated inmates proper. Its the natural progression and order of things. Someone once wrote that there are bodies, entirely equal, who drag themselves along on both sides of the wire, and because of it. Speaking out openly at demonstrations is only effective if certain political careers can be enhanced. Some of the demands may be met, or alternately, everyone gets swept off to jail. Either way, crap politics wins. Nothing more than this can be done without legal ramifications. It becomes an exercise in futility to demand anything from them, masked or unmasked.
I think it's a shitty law, but I also think the spin here is kind of funny.
If most are paying no attention, then how come even that RT article has the Liberals as the most vocal opposition?
I first heard about it, some time ago, via what some think is the PMO's mouthpiece, the CBC, and it is also getting coverage in the globe:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-bill-refines-rules-on-m...
Germany has had a similar law, only far more stringent ( no masks or face painting allowed in public, at all, and protecting yourself with a pillow will get you a weapons charge) since the 70s. And yet many people, rightly so, point to Europe as a model of political activism.
And again, this is about what THEY are doing, not what we are doing. If people are already committed to civil disobedience for the cause then what's the problem here? Or is it more a matter of not wanting to take responsibility for one's actions? Or keeping that all-powerful bogeyman image in place?
Me, I'm more interested in who is going to mount a court challenge, or prove this law unworkable, than this sackcloth and ashes routine.
6079 you seem to be acting just like your handle. Go ahead be a complicit sheep until it is too late.
Metaphorically you keep repeating 2 + 2 = 5.
Am I the one saying we are already in prison?
Hey, if you want to let a law like this stand in your way, be my guest. From where I stand this needs to be fought, but it changes nothing.
And it has absolutely nothing to do with the violence question, except that that seems to be a very handy excuse on the government's part.
2 + 2 = 5
Okay Kropotkin, if you can't post without belligerence, don't post at all.
Sorry for posting a math equation. Hard to keep up with what is considered unacceptable.
My deepest apologies to 6079 for posting the quote his namesake is most famous for. I will try to act better in the future.
But ultimately violence is never a solution.
And neither is non-violence in the form of passivity ever a solution. We should be clear about that as well. As Jesus, and I think Gandhi also demonstrated, it is possible to turn the other cheek without acquiescing to power. With that kind of resistance we could have emperors in chains. No solution is perfect imo. It's about choosing the most effective option for the situation. The US Military and NATO intelligence services use this general formula when overthrowing or attempting to overthrow foreign governments while aiding and orchestrating brutal crackdowns at home and the colonies when necessary.
I don't think I made any argument in favour of acquiescing to power.
Though there are certainly cases in which passivity - that is, doing nothing - is the best course.
And again, this is about what THEY are doing, not what we are doing. If people are already committed to civil disobedience for the cause then what's the problem here? Or is it more a matter of not wanting to take responsibility for one's actions? Or keeping that all-powerful bogeyman image in place?
This posting is what I responded to. I thought dismissing other activists was something that was to be avoided on babble.
The above statement is an affront to people who want to protest and do not want Big Brother to know who they are.
There is that less belligerent than 2 + 2 = 5
Claiming that we are already in prison is about as powerful and fatalist a bogeyman image as it gets.
I know there are reasons why some people have to remain anonymous, or wish they could. But my question about taking responsibility concerns something else, and it is a fair question, in the context of using anonymity as a tactic to provide cover for violence..
It is especially relevant given some of the derogatory charges made against protesters who do not resort to violence in a given situation. After all, if questions of collaboration and cowardice are going to be raised, then it's fair to ask about motivation in this case. And sorry, but we have been talking about this all along.
Again, I agree this is a bad law; I just see it as something that needs to be challenged. Really I should think the black block and their supporters would be the last ones to claim that a law like this is in any way a surprise or unfair. Seems to me it is exatcly the sort of reaction their actions are intended to create.
So yes, I find the fatalism kind of misplaced.
I don't think I made any argument in favour of acquiescing to power.
Though there are certainly cases in which passivity - that is, doing nothing - is the best course.
Mmm? Nope, can't think of any. Perhaps you meant to say that doing zip is sometimes the best tactic to pursue in one's own self interest. In addition, I think there is the possibility that "doing nothing" amounts to so much co-operation with evil. Doing zilch might have been a smart plan of inaction for individuals who stood to lose certain freedoms and other prized possessions during times of fascist oppression of the last century. I wouldn't say that the individual choice for standing idly by while brutal right wing regimes did what they did to their citizens was the best course for all, though.
Actually, knowing when to not react to provocation or be drawn needlessly into conflict, can sometimes mean the difference between success and failure.
Had Abraham Lincoln done anything but that, he would probably have failed; actually he would never have become president. And there are plenty of other historical examples in which keeping one's powder dry was a necessary part of success.
I don't think there's any disagreement here on how important it is to do something.
though there is 10+ pages here(and a Library of Congress worth in the past decades at other archived forums/newsgroups) of persons attempting to describe the best logistics to reach the same destination.
unfortunately there is no "the right idea" answer because every situation will have different results dependant on the "what" you do, and additionally the "when" and to "whom". What worked in the past can fail catastrophically or succeed beyond anyones imaginable dreams.
boogeyman might be an unintentionally vague description, in that it might have been intended to convey disagreement that "WE MUST ACT NOW!!!!" and might be recieved as "the percieved threat will always be imagined" which is rather inflammatory.
it's disappointing when people who are so committed to a cause through and through do not have the same committment to hearing(how burdensome clarification is) others and/or allowing their messages to be heard by others but instead adopt adversarial positions within a 'community' that already has so many divisions and reasons not to learn from one and another.
for me, I'm all for knowing as much about non-violent activism and the other kind because that's the stuff I need to make and continuously evaluate a personal decision.
Actually, knowing when to not react to provocation or be drawn needlessly into conflict, can sometimes mean the difference between success and failure.
Had Abraham Lincoln done anything but that, he would probably have failed; actually he would never have become president. And there are plenty of other historical examples in which keeping one's powder dry was a necessary part of success.
Eh? The Union did go to war with the Confederate South. And the Civil War almost destroyed America. It was a brutal and bloody battle that went on for years. War crimes were committed by both sides. Had the North lost, Lincoln probably would have been executed in the deep south after being found guilty by military trial.
And the country itself was founded on terrorism. The sons of Liberty were basically terrorists.
But ultimately violence is never a solution.And neither is non-violence in the form of passivity ever a solution. We should be clear about that as well. As Jesus, and I think Gandhi also demonstrated, it is possible to turn the other cheek without acquiescing to power. With that kind of resistance we could have emperors in chains. No solution is perfect imo. It's about choosing the most effective option for the situation. The US Military and NATO intelligence services use this general formula when overthrowing or attempting to overthrow foreign governments while aiding and orchestrating brutal crackdowns at home and the colonies when necessary.
Well said. If I were to add anything, it would be that "choosing the most effective option for the situation" must include that the option is chosen democratically and enjoys mass support. And that option, without any doubt, may be a violent one, as history has amply shown. The "violence vs. non-violence" dichotomoy is phoney, and it's unfortunate that it has informed too much of the discussion here.
But ultimately violence is never a solution.And neither is non-violence in the form of passivity ever a solution. We should be clear about that as well. As Jesus, and I think Gandhi also demonstrated, it is possible to turn the other cheek without acquiescing to power. With that kind of resistance we could have emperors in chains. No solution is perfect imo. It's about choosing the most effective option for the situation. The US Military and NATO intelligence services use this general formula when overthrowing or attempting to overthrow foreign governments while aiding and orchestrating brutal crackdowns at home and the colonies when necessary.
Well said. If I were to add anything, it would be that "choosing the most effective option for the situation" must include that the option is chosen democratically and enjoys mass support. And that option, without any doubt, may be a violent one, as history has amply shown. The "violence vs. non-violence" dichotomoy is phoney, and it's unfortunate that it has informed too much of the discussion here.
I like this. Argumentative logic is not aggression. And self-defence is not violence. I really wish the discussion could evolve...
@ Fidel
Sure there was a war. What Lincoln did not do is throw himself in with the camp which was committed to anti-slavery and nothing else, although anti-slavery was the main purpose behind the Republican Party. And he was determined that the Union would not be the aggressor in the conflict, and that his goal was to preserve the Union - not erase slavery in one stroke. Had he not held to these points, he would not have had consensus to preserve the Union and fight the war, and the struggle to defeat legal slavery would have been lost.
@ Unionist
Yes, agreed on the fact that it is a false dichotomy. But then, I have made that point a number of times here already, and this discussion seems to get dragged back to it again and again.
Really I should think the black block and their supporters would be the last ones to claim that a law like this is in any way a surprise or unfair. Seems to me it is exatcly the sort of reaction their actions are intended to create.
Claiming that we are already in prison is about as powerful and fatalist a bogeyman image as it gets.
Based on the fact that many fail to notice it, the carceral society model that we're confined within today has reached a state of perfection. It's not accurate to say that people are attempting to produce false imagery by describing the situation, because what is being described has already been produced, and set in place. This latest decree about wearing masks is intended to address the few rare anomalies affecting the system's ability to identify, record, track, and bring about the appropriate corrective action where necessary. I've been following what Mandy Hiscocks has been able to observe and endure in the formal prison setting, with its system of constraints, privileges and different levels of control. Combined with the perspective of once being a cell block guard myself, I can't help but observe that what we would normally classify as the average, free citizen in our society is actually minimum security. From there, more formal and direct arrangements extend out in every imaginable and observable direction.
On Panoptic and Carceral Societies
This system of control has, arguably, been aided in our own culture by new technological advancements that allow federal agencies to track your movement and behavior (the internet, telephones, cell phones, social security numbers, the census, ATMs, credit cards, and the ever increasing number of surveillance cameras in urban spaces). By carceral culture, Foucault refers to a culture in which the panoptic model of surveillance has been diffused as a principle of social organization, affecting such disparate things as the university classroom (see right for a prison school that resembles some classroom auditoriums); urban planning (organized on a grid structure to facilitate movement but also to discourage concealment); hospital and factory architecture; and so on.
No, I didn't pull it out of my ass, onlinediscountanvils.
Did you read any of the material I posted at #279?
Though you shouldn't actually have to; it's far more basic than that highfalutin theory.
If you made a career of going around smashing and burning things, fucking things up for the cops, and doing everything you can to provoke confrontation and subvert peaceful demonstrations should you really pretend to be surprised that the authorities might react in some way?
Are they supposed to do nothing? Or maybe have that magical epiphany I mentioned before and awake from their Capitalist programming like when the wicked witch of the west got melted?
Seems either naive or disingenuous to me.
As I said already, I think this is exacly the sort of reaction provocateurs want; and frankly any of them who don't realise that this is the flip side of their games should give their heads a shake.
Really, I don't like this law, and I think it is unworkable, and I don't like that some people will be adversely affected by it. But that doesn't mean that fighting for the right to wear a mask and go around smashing things is going to be at the top of my to do list any time soon.
@ SJ #322
Well that certainly is a powerful and absolute image. What is the point other than instilling the feeling that all resistance is futile, and there is nothing we can do?
...well except smash up a coffee shop or two. Then presumably the whole thing will collapse in on itself.
The dystopian nightmare imagery aside, I have to ask how this "carceral society" compares to the real thing - like the centuries of feudal life when people really were owned chattel, or places in the world right now where people really do live in prison conditions so that we can drink that coffee with extra sugar and read on our laptops about how imprisoned and powerless we are.
Sorry, but I have no interest in telling myself nonsense like that so long as I actually do have the capacity to act. After all there are enough places where people experience the real thing, and yet resist.
The question is, what is an effective response here in our society. Which gets back to the question of what, if anything, this bogeyman has to do with the question on the table. If the message is that my only option is to take to the streets and start smashing things, sorry, but I see that as helping this system of oppression, not dismantling it.
NDPP:At what point do we force our hand?
This is a serious post, despite lots of talk from the left, we arent effecting much change, sure we have official opposition but harper went from a minority to a majority.
Do we have to wait till feudalism sets in completely before we do something? Its doubtful we would have the brains or nerve to stand up even then.
Im not a member of the black bloc but increasingly my thinking is becoming more radical then theirs.
There are many others who feel as you do. Here is one example/response:
Time is Short: System Disruption and Effective Strategic Militancy
http://dgrnewsservice.org/2012/10/24/time-is-short-systems-disruption-an...
"...The doctrine of system disruption has been used around the world in countless conflicts for the very simple reason that it is effective."
ps: however, you will still need to educate, raise consciousness and organize also IMO...
should you really pretend to be surprised that the authorities might react in some way?
Having an understanding that the state will respond with increased repression when its hegemony is challenged is something entirely different from having that as an underlying 'intention'.
Having an understanding that the state will respond with increased repression when its hegemony is challenged is something entirely different from having that as an underlying 'intention'.
That's a fairly coy bit of hair splitting, I'd say
As for what the intention is, lets go back to that treatise from the North American Society for the Advancement of Criminal Science:
http://nasacs.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/yes-and/
The black bloc is a method to prepare and hasten the clash...
For us the black bloc means: strategic antagonism.
And from the very last section:
Our victory will come not by messenger, nor by the final orgasm of history. Rather, revolution will be the complex unfolding of billions of relations of domination, accented and accelerated by insurrection. From the time we entered this project to the present, the general geography of everyday struggle has condensed and multiplied, continuously paving the urban and suburban human environment in revolt against this society. There is increasingly less time between capitalist normality and moments of rupture. We expect our victory will be the slow, painful saturation of this world in such ruptures. The task set before us is how we will develop the necessary endurance, means, and vitality to be able to make these ruptures inhabitable.
Could use an editor, but it seems pretty clear to me the author isn't just saying "Who, me?' regarding the prospect of a reaction from the authorities, or how it might affect others. If your first goal is to hasten the clash, well, presumably you intend to clash with something - something which will meet your force with its own.
As I said, to strategically antagonize and then claim that the inevitable crackdown is not part of one's intention is either gross naivete or not being entirely honest.
I mean is the government culpable? Of course, but to pretend that aggressive actions had nothing to do with it would be both hard to believe, and would completely undercut any credibility these groups might have. But of course, I don't think any of these perpetrators are claiming innocence, are they? (thought they're certainly trying their best to not get caught.
In that, at least, they get points for consistency.
Having an understanding that the state will respond with increased repression when its hegemony is challenged is something entirely different from having that as an underlying 'intention'.
That's a fairly coy bit of hair splitting, I'd say
Not at all. Those are two very different things. I don't see how you can't understand that. Unless [i]you're[/i] the one being coy.
If you know the response will be, then it is intended, conaciously or not.
If you know the response will be, then it is intended, conaciously or not.
That seems like a pretty fucked-up standard if you apply it to other situations. If a kid stands-up to a bully, knowing that he'll likely get beaten-up as a result, is it his intention to get a black eye? If a woman challenges an abusive partner, is she asking for it? If a worker refuses an unreasonable demand made by her boss, is she trying to get fired?
If we were talking about a group which spontaneously went on a riot in reaction to some outrage, I agree it might be an unfair comparison.
But that is not what we are talking about. If the source I quoted is to be believed these are in no way acts of desperation. It is planned aggression designed to get a response.
Furthermore, if we look at the results - the government behaving very badly and being more oppressive, and turning more people against them - it seems to me it is exactly what provocateurs want to have happen. And if they have contempt for those who don't join in their tactics, and evidently little concern for those affected by their "slow, painful saturation" of the world by violent attack, why would they play innocent when it comes to government and police crackdowns?
In contrast to the Welfare State, the Socialist State supposes that The Social is all that is necessary. This premise is from a socialism that came before Marx. Aristocrats and dreamers of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the so-called utopian socialists, laid out fanciful social solutions as the salve to society’s ills. For them, the rational benevolence of planned communities would skip past to the reckless and greedy merchants setting the groundwork for industrialism.
It took Marx to propose a scientific basis for the development of socialism, who offered a guide not only for its subjective elements, but for its objective elements as well. In its most orthodox form, the Social State followed the Marxian ‘theory of stages of development,’ and set about the program of socialism to lift humanity up to a higher form of life. To direct this process, the first step to socialism was concretized by seizing the reins of an already existing State and transforming it into a government of development. Once such a government was in control, it proceeded with the objective development of capitalism; namely, the socialization of the means of production, and the rationalization of command. After subsuming civil society, the Socialist State then brought about the total reign of Biopower.
Caught in the race to out-produce its industrial neighbors, the Social State hastily installed The Spectacle to produce a social order. However, this version of The Spectacle shut down the horizon of liberation unique to the Socialist State. Che addresses this very problem in a note to a friend after serving as Finance Minister and President of the National Bank of Cuba, writing that “pursuing the chimera of achieving socialism with the aid of the blunted weapons left to us by capitalism” set the Socialist State on a path where “the adapted economic base has undermined the development of consciousness.”
If you know the response will be, then it is intended, conaciously or not.That seems like a pretty fucked-up standard if you apply it to other situations. If a kid stands-up to a bully, knowing that he'll likely get beaten-up as a result, is it his intention to get a black eye? If a woman challenges an abusive partner, is she asking for it? If a worker refuses an unreasonable demand made by her boss, is she trying to get fired?
All of these examples are straw ones. All of them are people doing something against oppression but hoping the reaction will not be the ones you outlined. The Black Bloc are not hoping for no reaction, they know exactly the reaction it will get and therefore it is intended. Thats different than 'prepared' fpr a adverse reaction
Don't you Remember,
The Fifth of November,
'Twas Gunpowder Treason Day,
I let off my gun,
And made'em all run.
And Stole all their Bonfire away.The fifth of November, since I can remember,
Was Guy Faux, Poke him in the eye,
Shove him up the chimney-pot, and there let him die.
A stick and a stake, for King George's sake,
If you don't give me one, I'll take two,
The better for me, and the worse for you,
Ricket-a-racket your hedges shall go.
Although ... growing up in NL where certain Irish songs betray a Republican sentimentality, and where fires are still lit on this day, the annual observance was more of a lament. Obviously the latter addition to the above poem was circa 1900. King James was the target of the gunpowder plot in 1604.
Yes, it's amazing to consider where some of today's folklore originated from.
Thanks for the reminder, SJ. I was so focused on events south of here that I forgot all about that old religious fanatic. I may have to brush the snow out of the fire pit.
It would have to be later than 1900 SJ, that would be the King Edward era. WWI would be more the time or earlier during any of the Georges (I II or III)
If you know the response will be, then it is intended, conaciously or not.That seems like a pretty fucked-up standard if you apply it to other situations. If a kid stands-up to a bully, knowing that he'll likely get beaten-up as a result, is it his intention to get a black eye? If a woman challenges an abusive partner, is she asking for it? If a worker refuses an unreasonable demand made by her boss, is she trying to get fired?
All of these examples are straw ones. All of them are people doing something against oppression but hoping the reaction will not be the ones you outlined. The Black Bloc are not hoping for no reaction, they know exactly the reaction it will get and therefore it is intended. Thats different than 'prepared' fpr a adverse reaction
*shrugs* Guess we just see things differently. I think the comparison fits just fine unless you come into it with a bias that one of these examples is hoping for a reaction, but not the others. I think in each example there would be an awareness that their actions might have consequences, but I disagree that any are hoping for a negative reaction.
It would have to be later than 1900 SJ, that would be the King Edward era. WWI would be more the time or earlier during any of the Georges (I II or III)
You're right. I encountered those two poems together as if they were two parts of the same one, but they're actually two seperate poems, with the second one having been first recorded in 1903.
If you know the response will be, then it is intended, conaciously or not.That seems like a pretty fucked-up standard if you apply it to other situations. If a kid stands-up to a bully, knowing that he'll likely get beaten-up as a result, is it his intention to get a black eye? If a woman challenges an abusive partner, is she asking for it? If a worker refuses an unreasonable demand made by her boss, is she trying to get fired?
Theres a difference between expecting and hoping. The black bloc is hoping and planning for a negative reaction, you cannot expect any other reaction when you are commiting acts of violence/vandalism. The other examples are about emotions and expecting/hoping for reason. There is no way the black bloc is expecting/hoping for a rational rather than emotional reaction since a institution does both
All of these examples are straw ones. All of them are people doing something against oppression but hoping the reaction will not be the ones you outlined. The Black Bloc are not hoping for no reaction, they know exactly the reaction it will get and therefore it is intended. Thats different than 'prepared' fpr a adverse reaction
*shrugs* Guess we just see things differently. I think the comparison fits just fine unless you come into it with a bias that one of these examples is hoping for a reaction, but not the others. I think in each example there would be an awareness that their actions might have consequences, but I disagree that any are hoping for a negative reaction.
It would have to be later than 1900 SJ, that would be the King Edward era. WWI would be more the time or earlier during any of the Georges (I II or III)You're right. I encountered those two poems together as if they were two parts of the same one, but they're actually two seperate poems, with the second one having been first recorded in 1903.
If I had to guess I would have said George II give his bloody suppression of the Scots rebellion
